On May 26 2001, the JCLU held a general assembly and symposium “Self-Regulation of the Mass Media and Freedom of Expression.” This well attended event was probably the first time that people from each of the motion picture, broadcasting, newspaper, magazine and internet media industries were invited for discussion. Below each panelist is introduced with the panelist's key note speech and afterwards the main points of the discussion. The procession and coordination of the meeting was Director Kenta Yamada.
Mr. Mamoru Matsuo, Secretary General of the Administration Commission of Motion Picture Code of Ethics
In the movie industry, censorship began with the GHQ (General Headquarters of Supreme Commander for Allied Powers), but as America professed to be a democracy, it could not continue censorship activities. Upon GHQ's strong suggestion that there be an independent rule making organization, the Motion Picture Code of Ethics Rules Committee came about as the first intra-industry organization. As an aside, “Season of the Sun”, which was the first in the series of movies depicting the behavior of young people, had a scene which caused newspaper movie critics and others to raise a commotion. There then began a movement to regulate what could be expressed in movies. This perplexed the movie industry and the parent organization of the current Administration Commission of Motion Picture Code of Ethics (the “Eirin Commission”) was formed by intellectuals with no connection with the movie industry.
In 1965 and 1972 there were two cases where movies passed the Eirin Commission audit, but were brought up on indecent exposure charges. These cases resulted in not guilt judgments. In the opinion for the latter of the two cases, the court stated that “the authority of the opinion of the Eirin Commission should be heeded.” It was with this opinion that the Eirin Commission was socially recognized.
In Japan, almost all domestic theaters participate in the Zenkoren Union. The Eirin Commission audits all movies before they are shown at member theaters. That movies are audited before they are screened gives the impression of authority, however in order to avoid suspicion, freedom of expression is always held in the highest regard during an audit.
Mr. Harumi Miyoshi, Secretary General of the Broadcasting and Human Rights/Other Related Rights Organization (BRO)
The opportunity that prompted self-regulation of the broadcasting industry came in 1992 when the Diet indicated the contents of programs were against public morality and policy.
Points of contention about the self-regulation have changed each time new problems have been raised. Exposure of a fake documentary caused arguments on an excess of programming and methods of expression. Then the issue of the day changed to political fairness and justice in response to remarks that implied politically biased broadcasting by the Director of the broadcasting company at the Advisory Council for Programming of The National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan. Next, recurring problems with subliminal messages were exposed. This shifted the issue to fairness of expression away from political issues.
On the other hand, there was also the issue of the Kawano Report related to the 1994 Matsumoto Sarin incident, and the 1995 attorney Sakamoto video issue. Broadcast journalism debated issues that included broadcasting ethics.
With this as a background, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications intended to build a private advisory organization for its Broadcasting Bureau Chief. This organization would have the ability to comment on even the contents of programs under the pretext of researching the establishment of the multi-channel era. However, the broadcasting industry prevented this, and went as far as to compromise on changing the establishment's name to the “Conference for the Broadcast Audience in the Multi-channel Era.”
However, the movement from the government and the Liberal Democratic Party to establish a rule making body was remarkable. To put an end to this, referencing the examples of other countries, the Broadcasting and Human Rights/Other Related Rights Organization (BRO) was formed as a third party organization, and started its functions from June 1997.
At the same time, each television station established guidelines and made materials and news reports, The Audience Center was overhauled and each company started to organize their verification programs.
BRO takes care of matters relating to those whose rights have been infringed under broadcast law or programming standards, where the petitioner and station are irreconcilable and the dispute is not before a court. Aside from the six matters that went through the committee decision in these four years, fourteen matters were resolved by BRO mediation last year.
Mr. Yoshiyuki Hashiba, Tokyo Head Office Editing Committee, Mainichi News
Newspaper companies have their special sections taking calls from readers, but in fact, protest calls go straight to Reporting Departments. Furthermore, branch offices do not have such independent customer complaint departments. Because reporting departments are characteristically deadline-driven, they just cannot give sufficient attention to resolving these direct protesting calls.
In order to correct this and show that it can properly respond to customer complaints in October of last year, The Mainichi Newspaper has made a third party organization called the “Open Newspaper Committee.”
Thinking that governmental movements to regulate the media have always come from public distrust of newspapers, it is necessary to show a visible stance for newspaper companies.
The role of this committee is, first to have a committee member check the complaints of human rights infringements caused by reporters and then check the head office's response. Even if there is no claim, the committee member will make an announcement on the problematic article. In the midst of this rapidly changing media environment, this is advancing the goal of better reporting.
Mr. Junichiro Ishii, assistant chief editor,Weekly Bunshun
For checking articles, first of all the chief editor reviews all articles. Above the chief editor, the editing bureau chief reviews all of the articles again. Above the editing bureau chief, the executives make a review. The word “self-regulation” has a negative image for magazines, although I recognize that this is out of date. Speaking as an magazine editor, self-regulation means each editor recognize and practise proper coverage and proper report.
In order to report correct information, our editing department is taking measures such as the following: First, new employees during the training period study the issue of defamation for a long period of time. Thereafter, the company conducts additional training centering on legal issues for employees 12 years after they join the company.
Other than that, the company's legal department makes a report on legal issues relating to publications both inside and outside the company in the “Legal News” and distributes it to employees every other month. Also staff are sternly urged to be careful to avoid excessive reporting causing damage, like when television, newspaper and magazine reporters crowd around and surround a victim's home.
Mr. Tohru Maruhashi, Legal and Foreign Department Manager and Representative, Nifty
The main job of internet connection companies (providers) is to offer the technology and a place for users to directly send information and express opinions. The providers do not themselves send information, so they are totally different from the other mass media. Rather, the issues of expression that have to with the confidentiality of communication and the prohibition of censorship.
For the provider industry, the word self-regulation brings unease. The provider industry cannot “self” regulate someone else's information and the object of normal regulation is the restriction of illegal information. Again the business stance is that if you do not want to receive harmful information up to a point, clearly state it in a contract.
The Telecom Services Association, a group for the provider industry, is proposing guidelines as common denominator for this. Practically, if there is possible illegal information on a web page, the provider will request that the individual take it down. If the information is assuredly illegal, then the provider may take down the information itself. However, this is an after the fact response. According to the telecommunications business law, because there are restrictions on privacy and a prohibition on censorship, these are the only measures that can be taken..
If providers do not make inspections, etc. there will be the criticism that information from the internet is uncontrollable. For this, as a global trend, there is a movement that there should be a hotline that industry or citizens group check the contents and report to the police or providers.
However, there must be an appropriate amount of cooperation and anyway, providers are just a media for users to transmit information, so the providers cannot do things like inspections.
We are inclined to disclose information meaning to indicate to our readers our information and our stance. We do not just want to say that the newspapers are doing so much so we are fine. Regarding freedom of expression, we want to be a part of the group and work together with other media and inclined to pile up the discussion, going the distance.
Based on that magazines have individual characteristics and there are problems across different media, each individual editing department must think about this on their own.
The future task is to start examining the establishment of a committee to review the contents of our magazine. This committee is presumed to be autonomous and apart from actual activity of the editing department and filled with expert editors, or people from the company's old boy network.
If some mass media experts would examine it from a different perspective, it would be helpful. The point is not to plan on dulling the force of self-regulation, but rather how to plan for autonomy.
BRO is just something for the broadcasting industry to get across to people with. It is in that way that BRO, is a pioneer. The issue is however, that there is still the problem of how can BRC (Broadcasting and Human Rights/Other Related Rights Committee), which was formed to resolve and advise on complaints, procedurally address the problem of complaints.
BRO has established standards regarding activities which it handles, like regarding rights abuses under broadcasting standards, and broadcasting laws. BRC has taken further steps by setting standard on the cases regarding the complaints regarding privacy violations and defamation. However, it is now necessary to examine whether in the future BRC keeps this standard. It is thought that it is not necessary to intercept all legally related and issues before the courts.
There was outside pressure regarding the showing of the film “Battle Royal”, but within the movie industry self-regulation is going strong. However, as always, there is outside pressure for legal regulation, so we must keep watch that the ratings (audience classified by age) are properly enforced.
On the other hand, the world of movies is more than just films, movies are also making an appearance in electronic media. In the movie world, other than the Administration Commission of Motion Picture Code of Ethics, there are four societies such as the Japan Video Ethics Committee and the Ethics Organization of Computer Software and in the future there is talk about making one set of ethics standards for all visual media.
Written by Fumie Shibata & Toshiaki Fujimoto